Showing posts with label Marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marriage. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

One of the Original Drafts for Vatican II that Got Discarded

These excerpts are from one of the original drafts meant to be part of the Second Vatican Council - these drafts did not make it into the Council discussions, for obvious reasons!
 
******
 
DRAFT OF A DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON CHASTITY, MARRIAGE, THE FAMILY, AND VIRGINITY

 


1. The Church, Model of Both States
 
All the Christian faithful constitute one great family which has arisen out of the at once virginal and spousal union of the Church with Jesus Christ, since never does the Savior cease by the word of life and the grace of the Holy Spirit to render his Bride, purchased by His blood, most chastely fruitful. For this reason, the Holy Synod has decided to extol and defend in a single dogmatic Constitution the nobility both of chastity in the unmarried and its most beautiful fruit, sacred virginity, and of chaste marriage and its heavenly fruit, the Christian family.
 
2. Introductory Note
 
Since all that is about to be presented presupposes the divinely ordained differences between the sexes and their mutual relationship, a few things are said first about the origin and nature of sex and about man’s dominion over his own body insofar as this serves the propagation of the human race.
 
3. The Origin and Nature of Sex
 
God Himself “from the beginning made man male and female” (Mt 19:4), and He blessed them, saying, “Increase and multiply” (Gn 1:28). When He had given this blessing, He saw that all that He had made was “very good” (Gn 1:31). Thus, it is that the things that in this respect are naturally found in man are also good and proper, as the Church has often stated in order to proclaim the sanctity and dignity of marriage. But after Adam’s sin, they demand a proper modesty and protection (see Gn 2:25 and 3:7), but without any false or scrupulous shame. By the merits of Christ the bodies of those reborn have become temples of the Holy Spirit, which is why God can and should be glorified in human bodies also (see 1 Cor 6:19-20).
It clearly follows, therefore, that things which pertain to sex should be considered and treated simply, reverently, modestly, and chastely. In affirming this original dignity of human sex, however, false over-praise should be avoided, as if it were precisely by making man male and female that God made them in His image or as if it were principally by sexual elements that man were man. For in this mortal life, although human sex also enjoys other human qualities, it is nevertheless primarily ordered towards marriage and its spiritual and temporal goods, as Sacred Scripture teaches (see Mt 19:4), until that time is fulfilled when, as the Lord said, “at the resurrection they will neither marry nor be given in marriage” (Mt 22:30).
 
4. Man not the Absolute Lord of the Body
 
It should be noted that God alone is the absolute Lord of man’s life and of its integrity, particularly with respect to what makes man naturally capable of and associates him with God in the propagation of human life. Attempts to change one’s sex, therefore, when this is sufficiently determined, are wicked; nor is it allowed, in order to save the health of the whole man, to mutilate his genital organs or to render them infertile, if there are other ways to provide for his health. Nor in any case is or can there be a right to transplant into the human body the sexual organs of animals which produce the germinative cells of their own genus, or vice-versa; nor also to try to unite the human germ cells of each sex in a laboratory, even if this is done without violating modesty and chastity and solely for the sake of scientific progress.


5. Chastity in the Unmarried
 
Every man has the serious but equally honorable duty to dominate his sexual impulses and feelings by the exercise of chastity by which, with the help of God’s grace, the flesh and the senses are rightly subordinated to reason, by which man is raised to higher things, and, through reason illuminated by faith, to the law of the Gospel. Thus, by chastity sexual relations and intercourse are so ennobled that they are worthy of man, created in God’s image, and of the Christian. But the exercise of chastity differs in the unmarried and the married since only in the unmarried is continence linked with it; and in addition, while it ordinarily prepares the unmarried for marriage or for sacred virginity, for the married it is the splendor of marriage itself.
          For by divine ordination, revealed also in the law of nature, that man has a healthy sexual power does not give him the right to exercise it. That right is obtained only in a legitimate marriage and indeed within morally prescribed limits. An unmarried man, therefore, has a serious duty to refrain from actions which, alone or with others, of their nature constitute perfect or imperfect use of his properly and specifically sexual power or which by free and conscious will are directed to such use. The severe warning of the Holy Spirit through the Apostle should be remembered: “Do not be deceived: neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor the effeminate nor homosexuals...will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10). Indeed, even deliberate evil internal acts against chastity are severely forbidden by the Lord (see Mt 5:28; 15:18-19). Nor should it be said, especially today, that they cannot be avoided. For even the unmarried, if they humbly beg for and are helped by God’s grace, are able to maintain chastity, as the Sacred Council of Trent already declared and the Church has always taught about them.
          No less today than in the past the teaching of the Apostle applies, even for young people: “The body is not for immorality but for the Lord.... Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit?” (1 Cor 6:13, 19-20). “God did not call us to impurity but to holiness” (1 Th 4:7). While chastity is not the only nor the primary good in men’s moral life, still without it the moral life cannot be whole; and no one can deny how important God considers the life of those who, even outside of marriage, keep themselves pure and immaculate in this world; for it is not without reason that, along with charity, modesty, continence, and chastity are also listed among the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

6. The Defense and Care of Chastity
 
          If chastity, which is so important to God, is really to be preserved, it must be loved effectively and be humbly and vigilantly guarded, defended, and promoted by apt natural and especially by supernatural means. Human nature itself helps in this, through a certain innate shame, which develops and assists if it is imbued with a Christian spirit. That opinion must not be followed, therefore, which thinks that immodest acts, that is, acts which by their nature promote sexual desire, must be considered indifferent. A fortiori, that aberration must be rejected according to which such acts against modesty are recommended so that, by directly seeking and attaining lustful pleasure in them, a person may better preserve chastity and avoid the sin of consummated and perfect lust.
          No less condemned is that other extreme which adduces various reasons of the natural order and even invokes religion itself and morality in order to defend and spread a veritable cult of nudity, which neglects men’s condition after Adam’s sin (see Gn 2:25; 3:7). As for so-called “sexual initiation,” this Sacred Synod is ready to recommend modest and Christian education and instruction in matters sexual in accord with individual conditions and needs. Indeed, it blames parents who out of excessive shame or false modesty neglect or take this serious obligation lightly or who, thinking themselves incapable of it, entrust it to people who are not fit for it.
          On the other hand, it must reject that sort of education with is given to boys and girls together, without any moderation, immodestly, and without consideration of religion. With supreme loathing, furthermore, the Sacred Synod knows how many and how great are the detestable onslaughts today against chastity, by which in countless manifestations of today’s culture, even if under the pretext of play, recreation, science, art or praiseworthy beauty, souls redeemed by the blood of Christ are in fact constantly and almost everywhere, even within the family, being encouraged and even handed over to evil. It urges all, therefore, to arm themselves against such dangers by prayer, fasting, the sacraments of Penance and Holy Eucharist, and devotion to the Virgin Mary. They should also flee what are called near occasions. For how can they honestly pray, “Lead us not into temptation” (Mt 6:13), if they freely seek temptations? Mindful of the Lord’s words against those who scandalize, the Church has the right and duty to repudiate those who give scandal and especially the public corruption of sexual morality. And civil authority also must guard and defend morality by appropriate and effective means, especially by assisting the efforts of all, individuals or groups, to foster public morality, including cases where it is being harmed by writings, radio programs, television, or other instruments of human culture.
 

7. Some Errors are Condemned
 
They are seriously opposed to the Church’s teaching who maintain that even in a healthy man, almost everything, including religious, moral, and even supernatural matters, are to be explained a priori by sexuality, with the further accusation that shepherds of souls are to be considered unworthy and incapable of their office if they do not know these and other modern claims. It is also an error not to wish to acknowledge internal sins against chastity or to measure external sin itself by new, e.g., psychoanalytical, criteria, opposed to the teachings of the Church. Quite false are the views, which harmfully insinuate that actions which the traditional ethics of the Church considers opposed to chastity are instead demanded by nature itself or by a healthy development of the human person. The worst is to maintain that the most shameful love for persons of the same sex is the prerogative of a higher culture***.
          This Sacred Synod furthermore declares to be most pernicious the errors of those according to whom, if you believe it, precisely and above all in the area of chastity, there never or hardly ever are subjectively and seriously evil acts, especially in the time of youth or among habitual, occasional, and recidivist sinners, on the grounds that they are presumed to lack sufficient freedom; or indeed that such actions are inevitable. This error even reaches the point of maintaining that it is permitted to lead someone to such objectively seriously evil acts when they are only and at most material sins. Finally, the Sacred Synod rejects as harmful the errors that maintain that the Church by its teaching on chastity and modesty harms a healthy and vigorous education of the young. These views are directly aimed at God, since God himself says through the Apostle: “Immorality or any impurity... must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones” (Eph 5:3).
 
12. The Power of the Church
 
As belonging to the divine order, marriage was entrusted by Christ, not to individuals, but to the Church that it might preserve, explain, and determine the doctrine and norms by which it is governed. The Church must exercise this power not only for the good of souls but also for the benefit of Christian faith and the growth of the Mystical Body. For this reason, Christ, who wished the Church to defend to the utmost the indissolubility which he restored to marriage, also gave it the power, within limits and conditions established by divine law, to dissolve the bond of all other marriages, both natural and sacramental, always excepting, however, a marriage consummated after the baptism of both parties.
 
 
14. Errors are Repudiated
 
The Sacred Synod knows how greatly the salvation of the Mystical Body of Christ depends on a right acknowledgment of the divine order with regard to marriage. To defend it, it knows first of all that it is its duty to condemn all the radical errors of those who maintain that marriage in its origin and constitution is some merely social phenomenon in continuous evolution and without any natural or supernatural value, and that it does not come from God and from Christ and is not subject to the power of the Church in the new economy of salvation.
Likewise it condemns those errors by which it is held that the marriage of Christians either is not a sacrament or that the sacrament itself is something accessory and separable from the contract itself. It also rejects the view of those who state that the use of marriage is the specific means for attaining that perfection by which man is truly and properly an image of God and the Most Holy Trinity. It severely rejects the errors and theories by which is denied the immutable divine order with regard to the properties and purposes of marriage. And it explicitly confutes as a supreme calumny the statement that the indissolubility of marriage does not come from God but is a cruel invention of the Church, no less cruelly retained. Finally, it rejects the theories by which, in an inversion of the right order of values, the primary purpose of marriage is esteemed less than biological and personal values and conjugal love, in the objective order itself, is proclaimed to be the primary purpose.
 
20. Civil Divorce
 
Spouses are seriously prohibited from seeking so-called civil divorce as a proper dissolution, as if a valid bond before God could be dissolved by civil authority; indeed neither is it licit for others directly and formally to cooperate in such a civil divorce. In no case and for no reason, even if it is not rarely serious and painful, is it licit for the faithful, while the sacred bond lasts, to dismiss a wife in order to take another, as the Lord himself clearly teaches (Mk 10:11), although sometimes civil authority invalidly allows this.
Sometimes, however, “civil divorce,” while the bond endures and without contradiction of ecclesiastical authority, can be sought. So-called simple separation is not to be done lightly, without just, serious, and proportionate cause.
 
22. Errors are Rejected
 
The Sacred Synod must severely condemn so-called “temporary” or “experimental” or “companionate” marriages. It also rejects as unworthy of a man and especially of a Christian those instructions by which through various skills a real hedonism in sacred and holy marriage is propagated. It also rejects theories by which a violation of marital fidelity is considered allowed to spouses, either when the mutual love between the couple has failed or when the sexual impulse is falsely thought to be impossible to keep within the limits of monogamous marriage.
It is also mistaken to state that civil authority itself never has the power to punish adulterers, and indeed with an equal penalty for both men and women. It also rebukes those who say, and indeed under the pretext of benefitting the Church, that mixed marriages are generally and in themselves to be fostered rather than tolerated. That position is also mistaken which maintains that a marriage can be declared invalid or dissolved solely because of a failure of love. Finally the Sacred Synod most severely condemns so-called “free love,” by which, under a false pretext of constructing a new fraternity and society, sin is committed against the divine order and a lethal wound is inflicted not only on marriage but also on the family and society.


*** Today the vice of homosexuality is also quite widespread. Not only is simple horror at this most foul vice missing, but the claim is being made that it should be praised and presented as the mark of a loftier love and higher culture. For, it is said, to love a person of the other sex is easy; but sexually to love a person of the same sex is not for all, but only for the few who are suitable and educated for it. That is why that deplorable fact is spread, that even men of superior genius were addicted to this vice.



35. The Excellence of Sacred Virginity
 
If holy Mother Church has always especially honored chastity as a choice fruit of the Holy Spirit, it has certainly always regarded as among its supremely precious treasures that perfect chastity by which a person consecrates himself to God’s service by sacred virginity and, out of singular love for God, for the sake of the Kingdom of God (see Mt 19:12), by a spiritual and free decision abstains from marriage and from its bodily delights. This honor given by the Bride of Christ is still greater when that chastity is undertaken by a permanent bond and is thus surrounded by a greater strength and firmness.
          By such a consecration, a man emulates in some ways the purity of the Angels, in some degree already here on earth he anticipates the state of heaven, is more perfectly likened to Christ the Virgin, born of the immaculate Virgin, and is more closely united with God, the most pure Spirit. By such a consecration, with the help of God's grace, a person can totally hand himself over to the service of the divine Majesty, more easily engages in the contemplation of divine things, and, free from secular and fleshly cares, undertakes apostolic works in order to spread the Kingdom of God. 

Tuesday, January 2, 2018

Profession of the Apostolic Faith by three Successors of the Apostles in Astana

It is not licit (non licet) to justify, approve, or legitimize either directly or indirectly divorce and a non-conjugal stable sexual relationship through the sacramental discipline of the admission of so-called "divorced and remarried" to Holy Communion, in this case a discipline alien to the entire Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic faith.
 
************
 


Profession of the immutable truths
about sacramental marriage


After the publication of the Apostolic Exhortation "Amoris laetitia" (2016) various bishops issued at local, regional, and national levels applicable norms regarding the sacramental discipline of those faithful, called "divorced and remarried," who having still a living spouse to whom they are united with a valid sacramental matrimonial bond, have nevertheless begun a stable cohabitation more uxorio with a person who is not their legitimate spouse.

The aforementioned rules provide inter alia that in individual cases the persons, called "divorced and remarried," may receive the sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion, while continuing to live habitually and intentionally more uxorio with a person who is not their legitimate spouse. These pastoral norms have received approval from various hierarchical authorities. Some of these norms have received approval even from the supreme authority of the Church.

The spread of these ecclesiastically approved pastoral norms has caused a considerable and ever increasing confusion among the faithful and the clergy, a confusion that touches the central manifestations of the life of the Church, such as sacramental marriage with the family, the domestic church, and the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist.

According to the doctrine of the Church, only the sacramental matrimonial bond constitutes a domestic church (see Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 11). The admission of so-called "divorced and remarried" faithful to Holy Communion, which is the highest expression of the unity of Christ the Spouse with His Church, means in practice a way of approving or legitimizing divorce, and in this meaning a kind of introduction of divorce in the life of the Church.

The mentioned pastoral norms are revealed in practice and in time as a means of spreading the "plague of divorce" (an expression used by the Second Vatican Council, see Gaudium et spes, 47). It is a matter of spreading the "plague of divorce" even in the life of the Church, when the Church, instead, because of her unconditional fidelity to the doctrine of Christ, should be a bulwark and an unmistakable sign of contradiction against the plague of divorce which is every day more rampant in civil society.

Unequivocally and without admitting any exception Our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ solemnly reaffirmed God's will regarding the absolute prohibition of divorce. An approval or legitimation of the violation of the sacredness of the marriage bond, even indirectly through the mentioned new sacramental discipline, seriously contradicts God's express will and His commandment. This practice therefore represents a substantial alteration of the two thousand-year-old sacramental discipline of the Church. Furthermore, a substantially altered discipline will eventually lead to an alteration in the corresponding doctrine.

The constant Magisterium of the Church, beginning with the teachings of the Apostles and of all the Supreme Pontiffs, has preserved and faithfully transmitted both in the doctrine (in theory) and in the sacramental discipline (in practice) in an unequivocal way, without any shadow of doubt and always in the same sense and in the same meaning (eodem sensu eademque sententia), the crystalline teaching of Christ concerning the indissolubility of marriage.

Because of its Divinely established nature, the discipline of the sacraments must never contradict the revealed word of God and the faith of the Church in the absolute indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage. "The sacraments not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it; that is why they are called "sacraments of faith." (Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, 59). "Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1125).

The Catholic faith by its nature excludes a formal contradiction between the faith professed on the one hand and the life and practice of the sacraments on the other. In this sense we can also understand the following affirmation of the Magisterium: "This split between the faith which many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted among the more serious errors of our age." (Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, 43) and "Accordingly, the concrete pedagogy of the Church must always remain linked with her doctrine and never be separated from it" (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 33).

In view of the vital importance that the doctrine and discipline of marriage and the Eucharist constitute, the Church is obliged to speak with the same voice. The pastoral norms regarding the indissolubility of marriage must not, therefore, be contradicted between one diocese and another, between one country and another. Since the time of the Apostles, the Church has observed this principle as St. Irenaeus of Lyons testifies: "The Church, though spread throughout the world to the ends of the earth, having received the faith from the Apostles and their disciples, preserves this preaching and this faith with care and, as if she inhabits a single house, believes in the same identical way, as if she had only one soul and only one heart, and preaches the truth of the faith, teaches it and transmits it in a unanimous voice, as if she had only one mouth"(Adversus haereses, I, 10, 2). Saint Thomas Aquinas transmits to us the same perennial principle of the life of the Church: "There is one and the same faith of the ancients and the moderns, otherwise there would not be one and the same Church" (Questiones Disputatae de Veritate, q. 14, a. 12c).

The following warning from Pope John Paul II remains current and valid: "The confusion, created in the conscience of many faithful by the differences of opinions and teachings in theology, in preaching, in catechesis, in spiritual direction, about serious and delicate questions of Christian morals, ends up by diminishing the true sense of sin almost to the point of eliminating it" (Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitenia, 18).

The meaning of the following statements of the Magisterium of the Church is fully applicable to the doctrine and sacramental discipline concerning the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage:

• "For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient doctrines faithfully and wisely, which the faith of the Fathers has transmitted. She strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grow only within their own genus — that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning” (Pius IX, Dogmatic Bull Ineffabilis Deus)


• "With regard to the very substance of truth, the Church has before God and men the sacred duty to announce it, to teach it without any attenuation, as Christ revealed it, and there is no condition of time that can reduce the rigor of this obligation. It binds in conscience every priest who is entrusted with the care of teaching, admonishing, and guiding the faithful "(Pius XII, Discourse to parish priests and Lenten preachers, March 23, 1949).

• "The Church does not historicize, does not relativize to the metamorphoses of profane culture the nature of the Church that is always equal and faithful to itself, as Christ wanted it and authentic tradition perfected it" (Paul VI, Homily from October 28, 1965).

• "Now it is an outstanding manifestation of charity toward souls to omit nothing from the saving doctrine of Christ" (Paul VI, Encyclical Humanae Vitae, 29).

• "Any conjugal difficulties are resolved without ever falsifying and compromising the truth" (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 33).

• "The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm [of the Divine moral law]. In obedience to the truth which is Christ, whose image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all people of good will, without concealing its demands of radicalness and perfection" (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 33).

• “The other principle is that of truth and consistency, whereby the church does not agree to call good evil and evil good. Basing herself on these two complementary principles, the church can only invite her children who find themselves in these painful situations to approach the divine mercy by other ways, not however through the sacraments of penance and the eucharist until such time as they have attained the required dispositions” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34).

• "The Church's firmness in defending the universal and unchanging moral norms is not demeaning at all. Its only purpose is to serve man's true freedom. Because there can be no freedom apart from or in opposition to the truth"(John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 96).

• “When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the "poorest of the poor" on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal" (emphasis in original) (John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 96).

• "The obligation of reiterating this impossibility of admission to the Eucharist is required for genuine pastoral care and for an authentic concern for the well-being of these faithful and of the whole Church, as it indicates the conditions necessary for the fullness of that conversion to which all are always invited by the Lord“ (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration on the admissibility to the Holy Communion of the divorced and remarried, 24 June 2000, n. 5).

As Catholic bishops, who - according to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council - must defend the unity of faith and the common discipline of the Church, and take care that the light of the full truth should arise for all men (see Lumen Gentium, 23 ) we are forced in conscience to profess in the face of the current rampant confusion the unchanging truth and the equally immutable sacramental discipline regarding the indissolubility of marriage according to the bimillennial and unaltered teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. In this spirit we reiterate:

• Sexual relationships between people who are not in the bond to one another of a valid marriage - which occurs in the case of the so-called "divorced and remarried" - are always contrary to God's will and constitute a grave offense against God.

• No circumstance or finality, not even a possible imputability or diminished guilt, can make such sexual relations a positive moral reality and pleasing to God. The same applies to the other negative precepts of the Ten Commandments of God. Since “there exist acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object" (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).

• The Church does not possess the infallible charism of judging the internal state of grace of a member of the faithful (see Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 1). The non-admission to Holy Communion of the so-called "divorced and remarried" does not therefore mean a judgment on their state of grace before God, but a judgment on the visible, public, and objective character of their situation. Because of the visible nature of the sacraments and of the Church herself, the reception of the sacraments necessarily depends on the corresponding visible and objective situation of the faithful.

• It is not morally licit to engage in sexual relations with a person who is not one’s legitimate spouse supposedly to avoid another sin. Since the Word of God teaches us, it is not lawful "to do evil so that good may come" (Romans 3, 8).

• The admission of such persons to Holy Communion may be permitted only when they with the help of God's grace and a patient and individual pastoral accompaniment make a sincere intention to cease from now on the habit of such sexual relations and to avoid scandal. It is in this way that true discernment and authentic pastoral accompaniment were always expressed in the Church.

• People who have habitual non-marital sexual relations violate their indissoluble sacramental nuptial bond with their life style in relation to their legitimate spouse. For this reason they are not able to participate "in Spirit and in Truth" (see John 4, 23) at the Eucharistic wedding supper of Christ, also taking into account the words of the rite of Holy Communion: "Blessed are the guests at the wedding supper of the Lamb!" (Revelation 19, 9).

• The fulfillment of God's will, revealed in His Ten Commandments and in His explicit and absolute prohibition of divorce, constitutes the true spiritual good of the people here on earth and will lead them to the true joy of love in the salvation of eternal life.


Being bishops in the pastoral office those, who promote the Catholic and Apostolic faith ("cultores catholicae et apostolicae fidei", see Missale Romanum, Canon Romanus), we are aware of this grave responsibility and our duty before the faithful who await from us a public and unequivocal profession of the truth and the immutable discipline of the Church regarding the indissolubility of marriage. For this reason we are not allowed to be silent.

We affirm therefore in the spirit of St. John the Baptist, of St. John Fisher, of St. Thomas More, of Blessed Laura Vicuña and of numerous known and unknown confessors and martyrs of the indissolubility of marriage:

It is not licit (non licet) to justify, approve, or legitimize either directly or indirectly divorce and a non-conjugal stable sexual relationship through the sacramental discipline of the admission of so-called "divorced and remarried" to Holy Communion, in this case a discipline alien to the entire Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic faith.

By making this public profession before our conscience and before God who will judge us, we are sincerely convinced that we have provided a service of charity in truth to the Church of our day and to the Supreme Pontiff, Successor of Saint Peter and Vicar of Christ on earth .

31 December 2017, the Feast of the Holy Family, in the year of the centenary of the apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima.


+ Tomash Peta, Archbishop Metropolitan of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana
+ Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop-Bishop of Karaganda
+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

New Institute on Marriage & Family

The Germans --always those Germans-- are trying to change unchangeable Church Doctrine ... and we can be sure that they feel that their new "Martin Luther" opportunity will do the trick ... but it didn't work 500 years ago, and it will not work now.

For someone who claims to dislike authoritarianism and who wants to "decentralize" authority in the Church, the Holy Father's actions do not seem to comply with that "dislike" -- and this twenty-second (22nd) motu proprio (in only 4 years!) is good proof that His Holiness has not been as sincere in that as His Holiness would have us believe!

And now, these Germans, with the full support and consent of His Holiness, will go after Humanae Vitae -- arguably the only good and redeeming thing that Pope Paul VI achieved in his horrible pontificate! (In everything else --liturgical chaos, unending confusion, embarrassing ecumenical disasters, shameful scandals, etc., and, particularly, the appalling manner in which he dealt with the great Cardinal Mindszenty's heroic opposition to Communism--, Paul VI's pontificate was a complete disaster).

It's just as well; the faster things move, the better it will be in the end because this type of scandalous betrayal of Catholic Doctrine and Tradition can only go so far.


"... [W]ithin the sphere of the Truth of God, within the sphere of the unity and discipline of God’s Kingdom, there is no choice for the Catholic Church but mastery or martyrdom."
 

 
***
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-francis-sets-up-new-john-paul-ii-institute-on-marriage-and-family

***
 
(L’Osservatore Romano)
Blogs  |  Sep. 19, 2017
 
Pope Francis Sets Up New John Paul II Institute on Marriage and Family
 
The new entity, issued by papal decree, replaces the previous institute founded by John Paul II in 1981. Its aim is to carry forward the teaching of Amoris Laetitia and make it irreversible.
The Vatican announced today that Pope Francis has established a new Pontifical John Paul II institute for “Marriage and Family Sciences” to replace the previous academic institution founded by John Paul in 1981.
 
In an apostolic letter Summa Familiae Cura issued motu proprio and published Sept. 19, the Vatican said the new entity — whose name will be the Pontifical John Paul II Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences — is being established to carry forward the work of the two recent Synods of Bishops and the apostolic exhortation that came from those meetings, Amoris Laetitia.
 
The Pope notes the important work carried out by the original institute, called the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, which was founded in the wake of the 1980 Synod on the Family.
 
Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, who died Sept. 6, was the founding president of that Institute. As a signatory to the dubia given to Pope Francis exactly a year ago today, he had serious concerns about Amoris Laetitia, interpretations of which he found incompatible with John Paul II's teachings and the magisterium of the Church. 
 
But Pope Francis, who signed Summa Familiae Cura in Colombia just two days after Cardinal Caffarra’s passing, writes that the family synods of 2014 and 2015 have brought a renewed awareness of “the new pastoral challenges to which the Christian community is called to respond.”

Contemporary anthropological and cultural changes, the Pope continues, require “a diversified and analytical approach” which cannot be “limited to pastoral and missionary practices” of the past. Instead, he says, we must be able to interpret our faith in a context in which individuals are less supported than before as they deal with the complex realities of family life. Faithful to the teachings of Christ, the Pope continues, it is important to explore these “lights and shadows of family life” with realism, wisdom and love.

Like its predecessor, the new institute will continue to work as part of the Pontifical Lateran University. It will also be closely connected to the Holy See through the Congregation for Catholic Education, the Pontifical Academy for Life and the new Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life.

The institute, which comes into effect immediately, will offer students courses leading to a diploma, a license and a doctorate in marriage and family sciences.

In an interview with Vatican Radio’s Italian edition, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the institute’s grand chancellor, said the “great insight” of John Paul II “asks to be enlarged and enriched,” adding that it “finds its realization” in the text of Amoris Laetitia.

“Pope Francis asks that the reality of families in their concreteness… can be protagonists of a renewal in the Church and in society,” Archbishop Paglia added.

He said he wished to “underline” this “anthropological aspect” which “has been instituted through a new Chair called Gaudium et Spes whose task is to investigate, propose, dialogue with all the human sciences, because the family today rediscovers its vocation not in the abstract.”
 
He said a “new reflection” is needed and that the new institute will study better and in a more robust fashion areas such as family history and family law. And he added it will be “essential” to enlarge the library and to “revisit” the other John Paul II institutes on marriage and the family on five continents, “because the two celebrated synods [on the family] do not remain a written text without the responsibility to deepen it theologically, scientifically and pastorally.”
 
Archbishop Paglia insists it will strengthen the theological aspects of the Institute by better underlining the biblical and dogmatic pastoral dimension. He also said the word "science" is used to denote a "much broader dialogue with the great challenges of the contemporary world, and a deepening of the anthropological perspective."
 
Informed sources say the emphasis on human sciences effectively means a greater focus on psychology, sociology, pedagogy, using the scientific method, medicine, and bioethics — in other words, putting more weight on what is quantifiable regarding the human person. The institute has always had a scientific approach and the juridical statutes of the Institute state that three goals of the method are: didactic, scientific and pastoral, but the concern is that greater emphasis on human sciences will come at the expense of theology and philosophy.
 
Undermining St. John Paul’s Teaching?
Today’s announcement comes after significant changes at the Institute, including the appointments last year of Archbishop Paglia as grand chancellor, and Msgr. Pierangelo Sequeri, as dean.
 
Both are known to support a much criticized interpretation of Amoris Laetitia which would allow some remarried divorcees to receive Holy Communion, as well as being supportive of a softening of the teaching of Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae, which reaffirmed the Church’s ban on artificial contraception.
 
Scholars also within the John Paul II Institute itself have criticized both stances as diametrically opposed to the teachings of St. John Paul II.
 
Not surprisingly, the John Paul II Institute became a thorn in the side of those pushing for such changes, as became clear throughout the synods of the family when some of the Institute’s professors wrote numerous books resisting attempts by synod participants to allow remarried divorcees or those living in other irregular unions to receive Holy Communion (although the professors argued, in a book published earlier this year, that Amoris Laetitia could be read in continuity with the traditional teaching of the Church). 
 
These were in contrast to such attempts to weaken the Church’s teaching, such as the “shadow synod” of May 2015, partly organized by Msgr. Sequeri and attended by recently appointed members of the Pontifical Academy for Life headed by Archbishop Paglia.
 
The Institute’s publications, on the other hand, were widely seen as faithful interpretations of John Paul II’s teachings, drawing largely on his 1981 apostolic exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, and his 1993 encyclical on the Church’s moral teaching, Veritatis Splendor.
 
The dubia, five questions Cardinal Caffarra and three other cardinals sent to the Pope last year to clarify ambiguous passages of Amoris Laetitia, have also yet to be answered, pointing to unresolved problems with the apostolic exhortation.
 
This latest significant development is therefore being viewed in Rome as a further step to removing the obstacles presented by the teachings of St. John Paul II, paving the way for more changes. One of those may involve a reinterpretation of Humanae Vitae, timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the document next year.  St. John Paul II’s magisterium has long been seen as the main bulwark against moves by dissenting theologians to weaken the teaching of the encyclical.
 
Concerns about today’s announcement are further heightened by reasons used to set up the new Institute: to interpret the faith in a context that takes into account “complex realities” and not “limited to pastoral and missionary practices” of the past. Such reasons closely resemble the controversial approaches used in interpreting Amoris Laetitia and which also are likely to be employed in any re-interpretation of Humanae Vitae.
 
But until the new statutes are published, it won’t be clear if there is a rupture with John Paul II’s teaching and the institute that preceded it, or if there is in fact continuity.
 
However, the signs of a break are there. The institute’s new leadership has already been trying to strengthen it by making the faculties grow and helping the institution to become more prestigious. That way it attracts professors and students of different perspectives, but it’s an approach which, while welcomed, is seen by some in the Institute as a further subtle attempt to undermine John Paul’s teaching by introducing disparate views, out of sync with his magisterium.
 
Meanwhile, the Register has learned via reliable sources that members of the German episcopate have recently grown frustrated with the pace of Francis’ reform and have been exerting pressure on the Pope to step up the pace — hence today’s motu proprio, and Magnum Principium, issued last week on liturgical translations. More importantly, they are said to be anxious that the reforms won’t be reversed by a future pope and so want them, as far as possible, set in stone, possibly by means of an Apostolic Constitution.
 
Pope Francis himself has said privately that he wants to be sure his reforms are irreversible, a view shared by one of his closest confidants. 
 
This article has been updated to include information on the previous institute's scientific approach.